Waterlilies

IN THE LATE 19th Century, the French Impressionist painter Claude Monet produced the almost abstract “Waterlilies”. For many years it was housed at the Orangerie, Paris.

It was acquired by Imelda Marcos and shipped to her apartment in New York. Much later it was sold by Ms. Marcos’ secretary, Ms. Vilma Bautista. The artwork fetched US $43 million (well over P2 billion at the current rate of exchange). The purchaser was Alan Howard, a British hedge fund manager residing in Switzerland.

After deducting substantial costs imposed by the auctioneering firm and others, Ms. Bautista received US $32 million (P1.6 billion). This amount was subject to New York City and New York State taxes which Ms. Bautista omitted to pay.

Eventually, the tax authorities brought Ms. Bautista to court in New York where she was found guilty and given a prison sentence. She also had to pay the taxes.

The court case attracted much publicity. Quickly on the scene was Robert Swift, a Hawaii-based contingency fee lawyer who acquired in 1986 9,539 Filipino clients who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Marcos regime. Mr. Swift sought and obtained US $10 million from Mr. Howard to be distributed to Mr. Swift’s Filipino clients. It is unclear how much money has been received by these clients. Reportedly, Mr. Swift has been unable to reach many of them.

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was also in New York. The relationship between PCGG and Swift was apparently “not good”.

By any standard, the provenance (a record of ownership) of the artwork is extremely doubtful. It was acquired from the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family. The reputable art world is extremely concerned about provenance. Many artworks stolen by the Nazis during World War II have been retrieved and returned to their rightful owners. Marcos loot is analogous to Nazi loot. The rightful owner of “Waterlilies” is Filipino sovereignty.

But nobody seems to be challenging Mr. Howard’s right to own the artwork. Why not? PCCG has failed in its duty. Its chairman during the relevant period ( 2010- 2015) is Andres Bautista, another Bautista, who should have done much more to assert the Philippines’ claim to the painting. Why has he not done so?

To summarize the financial aspects, we have that Alan Howard paid US $53 million that we know of (US $43 million to the auctioneer and US $10 million to Robert Swift). Did he make any other payments to support his right to own the artwork?

Ms. Bautista received US $32 million less, eventually, taxes. What has become of the rest? How much has PCGG remitted to the government in connection with the painting? I believe it is zero. Why? Ms. Bautista has no right to the money. So where has it gone?

Sen. Vicente Sotto III has asked the blue ribbon committee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of ill-gotten or illegally hidden wealth against former PCGG chairman Bautista. This should include a vigorous “Waterlilies” audit./

PN